Please explain the validity of photography

EDIT: Now that I've submitted this, I realize this may not be the most appropriate title. Perhaps what I'm really asking is, how can photographers be just as respected as other artists?

This is not to insult or flame anyone. I'm expressing my opinion and I'd like to hear yours.

I any sort of art, the same basic principles apply, and this is true of photography as well. Whether or not photography is an art form is not disputed, it is. But what I'm not seeing, is how photography can be considered equal to other art forms.

Compare a photograph to a painting. For either to be good, the creator must first pay attention to the composition of the work. In this case they are equal, and it could be argued that photography is more difficult in this way because the photographer must do what he can with what is presented to him, while the artist can create what he pleases.
But beyond that point (as far as my understanding, please explain why I'm wrong), all the photographer has to do technically is adjust the settings in his camera to get the best picture possible, and do some digital correction afterwards.
On the other hand, the artist then has to go through the complete, and involved process of creating the painting. As I see it, because of this fine art is distinctly more valid than photography.

For perhaps a more fair comparison, take videography. This is extremely similar to photography, as the workings of the devices involved are quite similar. All the same things go into making a good picture. But, where a photographer needs to make only a still image, there is a huge array of things that the videographer must take into account to complete his project; too many to name, but audio, pacing and editing comes to mind.
Also, what will later be considered masterful or extremely memorable photography can be done casually by someone who happens to be in the right place at the right time and is skilled at what he does, where a video production takes an army of people, a large amount of time and money, and a huge amount of thought to be watchable.

My current stance is that photography is the lowest of most other art forms. Please, offer your intelligent opinion on the matter.

Well you seem to be basing your opinion on how hard one form of art is compared to the other. But think about this: How hard is it to put an entire history, personality, and emotion into one frame (picture) compared to a 3 hour movie (or in todays case multiple 3 hour movies). Also we must paint with whats available infront of us. Painters can do what they want.

Art is art. The complexity of one to the other is not how you should base your perspective of one against the other.

__________________Imagine there's no heaven
Imagine there's no countries
Imagine no possessions
No need for greed or hunger
Nothing to kill or die for

Well you seem to be basing your opinion on how hard one form of art is compared to the other. But think about this: How hard is it to put an entire history, personality, and emotion into one frame (picture) compared to a 3 hour movie (or in todays case multiple 3 hour movies). Also we must paint with whats available infront of us. Painters can do what they want.

Art is art. The complexity of one to the other is not how you should base your perspective of one against the other.

I think my biggest issue with it, is that when someone says that a photograph is beautiful or extremely meaningful, it is mostly the result of quality content which the photographer had little or nothing to do with. The creation of a good picture can, in many cases, seem inconsequential relative to its content.
For example, how does one put history, personality and emotion into a picture? They look around, find something that represents it, and take the picture. In any other art form you would need to create the subject for yourself.

What's your point? I'm not saying that photography doesn't take any skill, there are definitely masters and various levels of skill. But what I'm asking, is can the skill required to take a picture such as Ansel Adams' really be compared to the skill needed to render it in any other art form?

...We might not be looking at the same picture here. Nothing that I saw struck me as being absolutely amazing.

If you look in this forum, there's quite a large number of people who take good pictures. Of course, photographers can pick them apart and tell them they suck, but to the average person it looks pretty damn good. Put one in a magazine and it won't look out of place.

But look at an amateur in any other kind of art (except abstract... but let's just ignore that), and you can instantly spot an amateur. It's quite easy for someone to pick up a camera and take a good (or at least passable) photo, but in any other sort of art it requires an immense amount of time and effort to make something the average person can enjoy.

HBlack, this is the same exact argument that goes on in music. People who play classical music will say that rap is not art, while people who rap will say that rap is art.

A classical composer will also say that any old idiot can rap while it takes a master to compose a classical score.

The real way to get photographers and painters to see each other's point of view is to get the photographer to paint some pictures and the painter to shoot some photos. Then look at how many of the painter's photos and photographer's paintings are instant untrained masterpieces. I bet that none of them will be.

EDIT: All of your arguments have implied that a "good" painting, sculpture, etc. is one that is as close to photo-realistic as possible. Looking realistic does not make art good. What makes art good is the impression and feeling that it conveys. It is no easier for a photographer to put feeling and emotions on a piece of paper than it is for a painter to do the same thing.

Also consider that photographers take thousands of pictures in the pursuit of creating that perfect feel. Painters simply manipulate what they see to create the same effect that a photographer has to achieve by trial and error.

__________________

"The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in times of moral crisis, remain in neutrality."

The real way to get photographers and painters to see each other's point of view is to get the photographer to paint some pictures and the painter to shoot some photos. Then look at how many of the painter's photos and photographer's paintings are instant untrained masterpieces. I bet that none of them will be.

Of course they won't. But I bet it'll take much longer for the photographer to paint something decent than the painter to take a good photograph.

I don't want this to get into a stupid argument, and I do see your point. But so far nothing has shown me that photography is as difficult to become proficient at than most other art forms.

Also consider that photographers take thousands of pictures in the pursuit of creating that perfect feel. Painters simply manipulate what they see to create the same effect that a photographer has to achieve by trial and error.

I think this point works against you. You're saying that photography is more difficult because it requires trial and error? This makes it seem like you stumble over the right picture, as opposed to the artist who controls every aspect to make it his own.

I think this point works against you. You're saying that photography is more difficult because it requires trial and error? This makes it seem like you stumble over the right picture, as opposed to the artist who controls every aspect to make it his own.

Yeah, trial and error is not the right phrase, but I couldn't think of anything more appropriate.

Quote:

Originally Posted by HBlack

But so far nothing has shown me that photography is as difficult to become proficient at than most other art forms.

Then that is your opinion. If you wanted to be shown that photography is just as hard as any other art form, then what has been said in this thread would be more than enough. As far as I'm concerned, you mind was already set when you came into this thread, and nothing I say will change that. I will not get into an argument over opinions. I will say however that I believe you should have a more open mind about art, and life in general.

__________________

"The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in times of moral crisis, remain in neutrality."

I think when you think of art in the technical sense alone, then your argument has some merit. But art is way more than that, and some people can't see past that (which is why some people are drawn more to "technically good" art, than that of abstracts)

*edit*

(In my opinion), the medium has little to do with whether or not something should be considered art. Do you think that when oil paint and brushes first became prominent, people complained that it wasn't art because it was easier than sculpting from rocks?)

you have basically stated all of the arguments against yourself in your OP. A painter can make whatever he/she wants, a photographer has to work with what is there, and needs to capture just one frame, one blink of an eye and tell the story of that entire scene, capturing the emotion and mood of the scene. a painter can just sit there for as long as they want and add whatever they want tot he scene. and not everyone can take a "magazine quality " shot without it looking downright bad.

painting is not easy and i suck at it, but judging by www.myspace.com , not everyone can take a great picture either.
to each their own

EDIT: Now that I've submitted this, I realize this may not be the most appropriate title. Perhaps what I'm really asking is, how can photographers be just as respected as other artists?

This is not to insult or flame anyone. I'm expressing my opinion and I'd like to hear yours.

I any sort of art, the same basic principles apply, and this is true of photography as well. Whether or not photography is an art form is not disputed, it is. But what I'm not seeing, is how photography can be considered equal to other art forms.

Compare a photograph to a painting. For either to be good, the creator must first pay attention to the composition of the work. In this case they are equal, and it could be argued that photography is more difficult in this way because the photographer must do what he can with what is presented to him, while the artist can create what he pleases.
But beyond that point (as far as my understanding, please explain why I'm wrong), all the photographer has to do technically is adjust the settings in his camera to get the best picture possible, and do some digital correction afterwards.
On the other hand, the artist then has to go through the complete, and involved process of creating the painting. As I see it, because of this fine art is distinctly more valid than photography.

For perhaps a more fair comparison, take videography. This is extremely similar to photography, as the workings of the devices involved are quite similar. All the same things go into making a good picture. But, where a photographer needs to make only a still image, there is a huge array of things that the videographer must take into account to complete his project; too many to name, but audio, pacing and editing comes to mind.
Also, what will later be considered masterful or extremely memorable photography can be done casually by someone who happens to be in the right place at the right time and is skilled at what he does, where a video production takes an army of people, a large amount of time and money, and a huge amount of thought to be watchable.

My current stance is that photography is the lowest of most other art forms. Please, offer your intelligent opinion on the matter.

a) Art doesn't need to be justified

b) It doesn't matter how you make it, it's the end product. A person who can't draw for **** doesn't get more credibility because it's harder for him to sketch a persons face.

c) If you're using the "right place at the right time" argument you clearly don't even know enough about photography to have a valid opinion on the matter, not like yours would matter anyway

__________________A Haiku about Life - By Secret Asian Mantwitch slaps me around
he likes to make me his *****
Because of small cock

b) It doesn't matter how you make it, it's the end product. A person who can't draw for **** doesn't get more credibility because it's harder for him to sketch a persons face.

c) If you're using the "right place at the right time" argument you clearly don't even know enough about photography to have a valid opinion on the matter, not like yours would matter anyway

I don't see why he should be personally attacked for an opinion, he clearly stated it was his opinion and he'd like to hear an intelligent opinion to the contrary. so attacking his credibility does nothing.

I don't know why we are even having and argument this this idiot. Like twitch said, art doesn't need to be justified. What you think is art others don't, and the same pretty much goes for most people. We all have things that we like and dislike. I had a 2D design teacher that hated photography, and she did the most random abstract "art". She thought that everything needed to be abstract, I don't think it does, we each have two opions. But for you to come in here and ask us to prove to you why photography is an art form is complete and utter bull****. You have made yourself look ignorant, and uncultured. I think that you should leave st photo, look around at modern art, or even art in general and see what can be called art. Before you come in here and make a statement like the one that you did.

__________________

"You only ever grow as a human being if you're outside your comfort zone."-Percy Cerutty